Patna High Court
Arvind Kumar Gupta alias Arvind Prasad GuptaversusThe Union of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The notice dated 20.01.2026 is quashed as it is defective and not in accordance with law.
Summary
Arvind Kumar Gupta filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 20.01.2026 issued by the Senior Section Engineer of East Central Railway ordering him to remove his house built on railway land within ten days or face demolition. The petitioner argued that the notice was cryptic and lacked essential particulars, rendering it invalid. The Railway, through its counsel, admitted there was an encroachment but contended that the notice’s content was unclear. The Patna High Court examined the notice and held that it did not comply with the required procedural standards and was therefore defective. Consequently, the court quashed the notice, allowing the railway to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law, and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- What is the validity of a notice issued by a railway official ordering removal of an alleged encroachment when the notice lacks essential particulars?
- Can such a notice be quashed on the ground of procedural defect?
- Is the petitioner entitled to a writ of mandamus to restrain the railway from executing demolition pending a fresh, lawful notice?
Subjects
- encroachment
- railway land
- notice validity
- certiorari
- mandamus
- procedural defect
- quashing of notice
- property rights
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2299 of 2026
======================================================
Arvind Kumar Gupta alias Arvind Prasad Gupta Son of Late Gopal Prasad,
Resident of Kumhar Tolia, Pachbati Davakhana near Chiraiyatar Pul,
Kankarbagh, Police Station- Kankarbagh, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through General Manager, East Central Railway,
Hajipur.
2. The Chief Technology Officer, East Central Railway, Hajipur.
3. The Senior Section Engineer, East Central Railway, Patna Junction.
4. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Patna.
5. The Circle Officer, Phulwari Sharif, Patna.
6. The Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Danapur Division, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shakti Suman Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Meenakshi, GP-6
For the UOI : Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 10-02-2026 Heard Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mrs. Archana Meenakshi and Mr. Bindhyachal Rai
for the Union of India.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“i. For issuance of an appropriate writ
in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the
notice dated 20.01.2026 (as contained in
Annexure- P/3) issued by the respondent no. 3
whereby and where under respondent no. 3
Patna High Court CWJC No.2299 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
2/4
directed the petitioners to remove his house
constructed over railway land within 10 days,
failing which, the railway administration will
demolish the house of the petitioner and he will be
responsible for any damage to his goods, on the
ground that petitioner has constructed his house
over the land belonging to the railway.
ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ in
the nature of mandamus that during the pendency
of the present writ petition operation of the
impugned notice dated 20.01.2026 (as contained in
Annexure- P/3) may be stayed and the respondents
may be restrained from taking any coercive step
against the petitioners.
iii. Any other writ/writs, order/orders or
direction/directions as the facts and circumstances
of the case may require and deemed fit by this
Hon'ble Court may also be issued.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is residing under Mauja – Moharrampur, Thana No.
137, Khata No. 180, Survey Plot No. 21 in the district of Patna
and has received a notice dated 20.01.2026 (Annexure-P/3)
Patna High Court CWJC No.2299 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
3/4
issued by the Senior Section Engineer (Works), East Central
Railway, Patna Junction (respondent no. 3).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that a perusal of the said notice would show that save and except
the name that has been recorded in the notice dated 20.01.2026,
no details is/are there. The submission is that it is a cryptic
notice and fit to be quashed with cost.
5. Mr. Bindhyachal Rai representing the Railways
submits that there has been some encroachment but the content
is not clear inasmuch as the details are missing.
6. This Court has heard the parties and taken note of
the notice dated 20.01.2026. Either the respondent no. 3, Senior
Section Engineer (Works), East Central Railway, Patna Junction
is ignorant of the procedure for the issuance of notice or has
deliberately done, so that it is quashed in the Court of law. In
either case, he is accountable to the East Central Railways for
such action/inaction.
7. This Court wanted to impose cost upon the
concerned creator of the notice but at the insistence of Mr.
Bindhyachal Rai, it refrains from doing so.
8. The notice dated 20.01.2026 issued by Senior
Section Engineer (Works), East Central Railway, Patna Junction
Patna High Court CWJC No.2299 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
4/4
stands quashed. The respondents have liberty to issue fresh
notice in accordance with law.
9. The writ petition stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…